Institutional rhetoric versus local Reality: a case study of burunge Wildlife management area, Tanzania

Simple item page
dc.creatorKicheleri, Rose P
dc.creatorTreue, Thorsten
dc.creatorNielsen, Martin R
dc.creatorKajembe, George C
dc.creatorMombo, Felister M
dc.date2022-08-26T11:27:34Z
dc.date2022-08-26T11:27:34Z
dc.date2018
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-25T08:52:16Z
dc.date.available2022-10-25T08:52:16Z
dc.descriptionJournal Article
dc.descriptionWildlife Management Areas (WMAs) are establishments that promote wildlife conservation and rural development in Tanzania. However, through focus group discussions, key informant interviews, a questionnaire survey, and literature review, we found that the participation of local people in both the establishment and management of the WMA was limited and rife with conflict. While benefits have materialized at the communal level, local people saw neither value nor benefit of the WMA to their livelihoods. Specifically, local people’s access to natural resources got worse while private eco-tourism investors and the central government have gained financially. Contrary to the livelihood enhancing WMA rhetoric, top-down institutional choices have sidelined democratically elected Village Governments and successive legislative adjustments disenfranchised and dispossessed them and their constituencies. We conclude that village governments should consistently demand for their legal rights to the resources on their land until the WMA approach to conservation and development is democratized.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.identifierhttp://www.suaire.sua.ac.tz/handle/123456789/4475
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/92370
dc.languageen
dc.publisherSAGE
dc.subjectcommunity-based wildlife management
dc.subjectdispossession
dc.subjectinstitutional choice
dc.subjectrule-by-law
dc.subjectdisenfranchisement
dc.titleInstitutional rhetoric versus local Reality: a case study of burunge Wildlife management area, Tanzania
dc.typeArticle

Files

Collections

Sokoine University